[bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Sat Nov 1 14:22:50 EDT 2014

As a matter of fact I do think that democratic decision making processes should take into account the outcome of MS (and other) consultations but should ultimately decide matters of public policy on the basis of the broad public interest.

Don’t you agree?

M

From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] 
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:33 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Sivasubramanian M; David Allen; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

On 25 Oct 2014, at 5:43 am, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

The issue is not of course whether there should be the broadest base of “consultation” possible prior to decision making (including “multi-stakeholder” presumably because those involved will have direct knowledge of the affairs under discussion).  This is quite different from “governance” which includes processes of actual decision making—allocation of resources, determination of benefits and so on.

            So, if there has been a broad multi-stakeholder process, that includes civil society, government, representatives of minorities etc that has achieved consensus between all of them - you think a policy that was strongly disagreed with by civil society, business, many minority groups, should be overruled if a simple majority of elected representatives vote for it?

            (setting aside the practical issues of creating a transnational group of elected representatives etc just for the moment)

Including corporate foxes (for example) to guard public henhouses strikes me as an exceedingly bad way of proceeding.

            But, of course, any decision making that only includes the foxes would not be multi-stakeholder. 

            Remember the old joke about democracy being two foxes and a chicken voting on lunch. It is far more difficult to get consensus from the chicken. 

            Cheers

                        David

The issue is to whom are the decision makers ultimately accountable—in a Democracy, aspirationally to “the people”, in a MSist world to self-selected elite “stakeholders”.

M

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf OfSivasubramanian M
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 1:06 PM
To: David Allen
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; forum at justnetcoalition.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

Dear David Allen,

It requires different variations of the Multi-Stakeholder model fordifferent purposes. For the purpose of Internet Governance, we have 700 seats in the room with 7000 participants in rotation, with 70 million others listening, which is sufficient. If we are extending this thought to the government of Nations or the World, then it would not be a replacement for Democracy, but an enhancement (or call it a Complement), in the sense that the Elected Representatives and the Appointed Functionaries would involve the rest of the people in day  to day debates and decisions by using the Multi-stakeholder model. So, in a scenario where the multi-stakeholder model is extended to the larger arena of Governance, after elections, those elected would make choices by the multi-staekholder model.

There is a positive, apolitical reason why Multi-stakeholder model would be advantageous. We often find that Governments do not always find solutions to problems, some of which are complex problems. Think of the multi-stakeholder process as a process of consulting Stakeholders who are experts in their own respective sphere. Governments get to have varied expertise leading to creative solutions to problems that they are either unable to solve, or ineffectively resolve.

Sivasubramanian M

 <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> Sivasubramanian M

+1 (213) 300 8293 Oct 11-19 2014

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:19 AM, David Allen < <mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

Ah yes, you complain that, after elections, only those elected make choices.  Though of course, those who did the electing did make a choice, of their representatives, in the first place ...

But you imagine some evolution to a model where anyone who shows up has a place - and those who do not, of course, well too bad for them ...   Hmmm ...

In the first case, there is opportunity for the masses to speak through the ballot box.  And for the second place, you will arrange for a table with 7 billion places at it?  And arrange to get everyone there?  So, since there is no ballot box, they can speak?

Or, you prefer CJ Leung's [Hong Kong] approach, where we 'don't want to be representing the poor folk'?  So ceding power to the powerful?

David

On Oct 24, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Sivasubramanian M < <mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

It is not fair to say that the Multistakeholder model restricts participation. In fact the opposite is true because this new model has a working framework in place for bringing in participants other than elected representatives and appointed functionaries ( would not be very wrong to class these them both under "Government") to the table. And it is too early in the evolutionary phase of multistakeholder model to draw a conclusion that the participating stakeholders are not representative enough. 

The contrary of what you said is true. By its definition, by its intentions, and by the framework already in place, Multistakeholderism DOES extend AND broaden the opportunity for EFFECTIVE participation. 

 <https://www.facebook.com/sivasubramanian.muthusamy> Sivasubramanian M

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, michael gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

MSism as presented bears absolutely no relationship to Participatory Democracy, in fact it is exactly the opposite—rather than extending or broadening the opportunity for effective participation MSism restricts this by putting the condition of “stakeholdership”

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
      <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141101/e65ff85d/attachment.htm>